Venkitesh Janardhan Sarma vs Union Of India & Ors

This is an application filed under sub section (3) of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking to condone 1126 days delay in filing the Original Application.

The applicant is the son of late P.J.Sarma who was employed as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer under the respondents. He died on 13.8.2003 while in service. Thereafter, his wife moved Annexure A-2 application for appointment on compassionate ground. It seems from the objection filed by the respondents that even though recommendations were made for appointing her, that did not materialize for want of vacancy. Later, the question was reviewed in 2009. Then she expressed dis-interest and wanted her son, the applicant, to be considered for a post. According to the applicant, the first representation vide Annexure A-3 was submitted on 15.11.2010 seeking compassionate appointment. Again on 10.7.2018, Annexure A-4 application was filed, but both were not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the Original Application has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider Annexures A-3 and A-4 representations within a time frame.

According to the applicant, father had died after putting in 31 years and 11 months service, leaving 6 years of service. Even though an offer of appointment was made to his mother Smt.P.Shyamala, since she was in a state of mental depression due to the shock on account of the death of husband, Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4 representations were made for which no response was received from the respondents. When Annexure A3 was not responded, he was constrained to join for other jobs to take care of the family, he gave Annexue A4, which also was considered, then he was compelled to take up an employment in Hyderabad and could not follow up the same. Thereafter, due to Covid pandemic and consequent lock-downs, he was completely struck in Hyderabad. Thus, there occurred 1126 days delay in filing the Original Application which occurred due to the circumstances beyond his control. Such a delay is sought to be condoned.

The Original Application has been opposed and a detailed objection has been filed by the respondents.

I heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel.

It is the common case that the competent authority had recommended the name of mother of the applicant for appointment, but it did not get through for want of vacancy. In 2009, when the question was reviewed and offer was made, she expressed dis-interest and that was how Annexure A-3 application was filed by the applicant on 15.11.2010 seeking appointment under compassionate appointment scheme. By the time, more than 7 years had passed. According to the applicant, he did not get any response and thereafter, he again pursued the matter, after a lapse of nearly 8 years and Annexure A-4 was filed on 10.5.2018 seeking employment assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme. Now he has moved this application after a further delay of 1126 days complaining that his representations were not considered by the respondents.

It is the settled position that employment assistance under the compassionate appointment scheme is not a scheme for taking care of unemployment. It is intended to give succor to the bereaved family of a government servant dying in harness and for facilitating them to tide over the financial crisis happened due to the untime death of the bread winner of the family.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others ((1994) 4 SCC 138) has held as follows:

“ 2.................... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. ….........…........................”

Again, in paragraph 6 it is held thus:

“For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

It is also worthwhile to quote the following paragraph from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others v. Nirval Singh ((2019) 6 SCC 774):

“8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. …............ ”

In fact, an application for condoning delay in a claim for compassionate appointment is something alien to the very compassionate appointment scheme. Immediacy is the most important aspect for compassionate appointment. It is intended to ameliorate and give succor to the family suffering due to the untime passing away of the breadwinner of the family. If the 'dependent' family member does not approach the authorities immediately after the demise, adverse inferences have to be drawn.

Here, from the very conduct of the applicants, it is clear that he was not interested in getting any such employment nor he had approached the authorities in right earnest. From Annexure A-4 it is clear that he had been working abroad in Qatar for 14 years etc. But I do not want to dilate on this aspect. Suffice it to see that, after filing a representation, he did not take the matter seriously. After long lapse of time, he has leisurely moved the Tribunal for condoning delay.

At this stage, this Tribunal is concerned only about the delay aspect. Annexure A-4 was filed in May 2018. Grounds for condoning delay are abstract and lacking in particulars. He cannot take shelter under Covid pandemic etc. In fact such difficulties had developed only in March 2020. After missing his boat at the appropriate time, the applicant cannot be heard to say that he could not approach the Tribunal on time. In the celebrated decision in Basawaraj and Another v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 2014 SC 746). Here the Apex Court has held that in such cases the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.

As held by the Court, this Tribunal is conscious that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be given a liberal interpretation to ensue that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straight jacket formula is possible.

Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” meaning, “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such situation.

In fact, ostensibly no valid reasons either plausible for convincing are stated for condonation of the inordinate delay. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous Application is only to be dismissed. Dismissed. Accordingly, O.A No.700/2022 is also dismissed. No costs.

(Dated this the 29th day of May, 2023)